Allowed

Indradev Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2023ABAIL/17859/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the applicant accused of cheating and forgery. The court, noting false implications and prior cooperation, granted bail with conditions, relying on Supreme Court precedent regarding future contingencies.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed with conditions; to be released with personal and two sureties on the same terms as order dated 21.2.2022.

Indradev Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172153

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 17859 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Indradeo Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijai Shanker Shukla,Indra Deo Mishra,Jai Shanker Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant and the counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. are taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Indra Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶9

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.822 of 2020, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. at Police StationKotwali Nagar, District- Banda with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant had acted as a bona fide during the discharge of his official duty and even the said sale deed has been cancelled by the civil court. The applicant has since retired. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail till submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. or 90 days, whichever was earlier, vide order dated 21.2.2022 of this Court. Learned counsel has stated that the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been submitted. The applicant has not misused the said opportunity granted earlier on and has cooperated during investigation. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in

¶11

the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶14

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Indradeo Shukla be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

(ii). that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶17

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶18

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶20

(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶21

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶23

Order Date :- 25.8.2023 Vikas

¶24

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indradev Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indradev Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Gitiya @ Sangeeta Vs State of U.P.

S.M. Tariq Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Nazim Vs State of U.P.

Ram Nandan @ Ram Nandan Chaudhary and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Avadhesh Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others